Some question about sayc 2/1

[foo]

When we are done, this thread should be pinned as a primer on SA and bidding judgement within a SA context. B)

 

regarding x.Axxxx.Kx.Kxxxx as Responder,

1= Marty Bergen and the rest of the Rule of 20 cohort would open this without worry.

2= This hand has 2 defensive tricks, 6 losers, and controls more akin to a 13+ count rather than 10 count.

In sum, you 2/1 with this because it basically is an Opening bid.

 

regarding x.AQxxx.xx.KJxxx as Responder,

Ditto. Despite only having 3 controls you have 2+ defensive tricks, 6 losers, etc

 

regarding Qx.xxxx.AJx.AJxx

Ugh and Ick. 9 losers, possibly wasted SQ, no good 2/1 or good rebid.

Playing 1N= 15-17, I =pass= rather than open this sometimes. Playing 1N= 12-14, I get this jreck off my chest ASAP with a 1N opening.

This is not a good 2/1.

Thankfully the SA bid with this hand after 1S is 3N (and this case we pray)

 

I =never= said "1M-1N shows 6-11 HCP any distribution" in SA.

I said "1M-1N shows a minimum and the definition of minimum is context dependent on the auction".

Your quoted phrase is the definition of 1N Semi-Forcing.

 

When you play SA as written, you are expected to use judgement more often than when you play many of the more "high octane" systems like 2/1 GF.

 

SA is far from perfect. OTOH, No bidding system is perfect. But SA as documented is far better than many credit.

[Codo]

Hi foo,

 

your point is simple not true.

You don´t know, which honours in your hand are working, after pd bid 1 M and you have no fit.

So it is quite easy to stick to the "rules" and bid 2/1 with "any" 11 HCPs or a hand of similar strength.

That "Marty Bergen" had opened soem hands is not relevant. He is not playing SAYC and he could even play better then some posters.

 

AVM made the point:

You need to discuss, which is your "catch-all Bid."

Here in Germany ( and in France I guess), this is more often then not 2M, not 2 NT.

But without discussion, you will never know, what your pd thinks about this.

[awm]

My point is very simple. If opener's 2NT rebid is forcing, and opener will rebid 2NT on a balanced 12-count, then if you're going to bid 2♥ over 1♠ you better be prepared to play in game opposite a balanced 12-count.

 

If your 2/1 bids promise enough for game opposite a balanced 12-count and you don't open very light (which is not part of standard) then you are playing 2/1 game force. Since in sayc 1♠-2♥ is not game forcing it follows that either 2NT rebid is not forcing or opener should not rebid 2NT on a balanced 12-count.

 

I find it amusing that Foo has:

 

(1) Given an example which was a 5-5 11-count with no fit as a 1NT response to 1♠.

(2) Told me that my 5-5 10-counts with no fit should make 2/1 calls because they are "opening bids."

(3) Stated that it's a good idea to go slow with a misfit.

(4) Decided to force game on a 5-5 ten count opposite an opener with no known fit.

(5) Stated that a 12-count on which I would make a 2/1 call planning to invite game is truly an awful 12-count and agreed that it doesn't make game opposite a hand where I would decline the invite.

(6) Stated that his systemic bid on said 12-count is 3NT.

 

This seems vaguely contradictory to me. The way I learned sayc is simple: any rebid by opener above two of his major promises enough for game opposite a 2/1 bid. If opener doesn't have this level of extras and doesn't have a cheap suit to bid, then he bids 2M as a "waiting bid" allowing partner to rebid 2NT non-forcing.

[Stephen Tu]

Let's be very clear here: We are talking about Standard American (the basis for SAYC), not 2/1 GF.

Playing SA, Opener's rebid of 2N after Responder's 2/1 CAN NEVER EVER BE PASSED. A SA 2/1 is a promise "written in heart's blood" that Responder will take a 2nd bid. No matter what Opener rebids.

 

This isn't right. In the specific variant of SA known as SAYC, responder promises a rebid after a non-game rebid by opener. And certainly 2nt after a 2/1 in many variants of SA is forcing. But this is not true of all variants. SA is not a single system, it is a broad term describing a family of systems, of which there is considerable variation in the meanings of specific sequences.

 

Let me quote from the Encyclopedia of Bridge, from the "opener's rebid" section, talking about a 2nt rebid after a 2/1 response:

"There are two schools of thought among standard players. One school treats the bid as forcing, showing 15-17 points ... The other school is willing to rebid 2nt on a minimum balanced hand ... the bid can be passed in theory but hardly ever is."

 

All of is straight out of the ACBL's Club Series and other such elementary teaching texts.

 

The SA described in the club series might say this (I haven't read any of Audrey Grant's stuff, this split range treatment is surprising in an SA context, I'll have to check it out). But it is not universal. I don't remember say "Commonsense bidding" by Root using a split range 2nt rebid. There are a ton of books on SA out there. There are significant differences among them. There is not much "standard" in SA.

 

This is only true if you are willing to raise responder's hands and make reverses & high reverses on minimum hands. Say Qxxxx Qx AKJxx x. 1S-2H;??

 

Again, straight from the novice books on Standard American:

A new suit at the Three Level after a 2/1 requires Opener to have a medium+ strength hand. ~15+ HCP or ~16+ if including distribution.

With the given example, the "book bid" is 2N.

 

Really!! Grant's book is teaching this? That's completely astounding to me. I think this is incredibly non-standard. The only person I've ever read advocate a catchall 2nt rebid with this type of hand is Marty Bergen in his "Better bidding with Bergen" series in a 2/1 GF context. He wants the 2M rebid to guarantee 6. I don't like this style for the reasons given earlier, and I think it's very weird to be teaching this to novices; it's quite unnatural to be bidding 2nt with a singleton in an unbid suit. Do you have the title of the book this comes from?

 

I see novices making this mistake with 11 HCP 5D+5C hands after a 1M opening all the time. It is a common novice mistake to think that all shapely hands have greater trick taking potential than their HCP value suggests. The reality of course if that shape is only good in the presence of fits. Misfits destroy the potential of hands just as much as fits enhance their potential.

 

Sure, misfits are bad, but just because you have misfit for opener's first suit doesn't mean you don't have a fit elsewhere. Or enough to have decent chances to make on power alone despite the misfit. These are 11 *hcp* hands, not 11 "total points including distribution" hands we are talking about. I can't recall any text ever teaching people to refrain from making 2/1 on 11 hcp, in a non 1ntf response context.

 

If it goes 1S-1N with a 11 HCP (12)55, or 1(345) hand, and Opener passes with a minimum in terms of both shape and values, the odds of you missing a good game are minimal.

 

Given that opener will have to pass balanced 14/15 counts, I disagree.

[foo]

My point is very simple. If opener's 2NT rebid is forcing, and opener will rebid 2NT on a balanced 12-count, then if you're going to bid 2♥ over 1♠ you better be prepared to play in game opposite a balanced 12-count.

 

If your 2/1 bids promise enough for game opposite a balanced 12-count and you don't open very light (which is not part of standard) then you are playing 2/1 game force. Since in sayc 1♠-2♥ is not game forcing it follows that either 2NT rebid is not forcing or opener should not rebid 2NT on a balanced 12-count.

 

I find it amusing that Foo has:

 

(1) Given an example which was a 5-5 11-count with no fit as a 1NT response to 1♠.

(2) Told me that my 5-5 10-counts with no fit should make 2/1 calls because they are "opening bids."

(3) Stated that it's a good idea to go slow with a misfit.

(4) Decided to force game on a 5-5 ten count opposite an opener with no known fit.

(5) Stated that a 12-count on which I would make a 2/1 call planning to invite game is truly an awful 12-count and agreed that it doesn't make game opposite a hand where I would decline the invite.

(6) Stated that his systemic bid on said 12-count is 3NT.

 

This seems vaguely contradictory to me. The way I learned sayc is simple: any rebid by opener above two of his major promises enough for game opposite a 2/1 bid. If opener doesn't have this level of extras and doesn't have a cheap suit to bid, then he bids 2M as a "waiting bid" allowing partner to rebid 2NT non-forcing.

The real point I'm trying to make is that HCP are not the be all and end all of hand evaluation.

 

Playing SA, almost all 4333 12 HCP hands should not Open.

Playing SA, some 4432 12 HCP hands should not Open.

OTOH, many shapely hands with 2+ Quick Tricks, 6- losers, and an easy rebid are legitimate SA Opening bids despite not having 12+ HCP.

 

Playing SA, if Responder has a fit or exceptional fit for Opener, many hands become Invitational or GF even though they are minimums if we evaluate them only based on HCP.

OTOH, if Responder is in a misfit auction, many hands that would be considered invitational based strictly on HCP become minimums. This is particularly true of minor suit oriented Responding hands after a 1M Opening.

 

****************************************************************

HCP are a loose guide at best. They work reasonably well for flat hands, although even there some judgement is needed. HCP do not work well by themselves as a measure of playing strength in shapely hands.

****************************************************************

 

As for the 1M-3N confusion:

If you are not playing 1M-2N! as a conventional raise of Opener's major, then in SA

the sequences 1M-2N and 1m-2N both show a minimum opening bid in Responder's hand. Most pairs adopt 1M-2N! as a conventional M suit raise very quickly. At which point 1M-3N defaults to showing the hand originally shown by 1M-2N.

Sorry for whatever confusion I caused by not making this explcit in my earlier post.

[foo]

Really!! Grant's book is teaching (all) this? That's completely astounding to me.

...and not just Audrey.

 

From the Audrey Grant ACBL C series:

p101

Opener's Rebid After Responder Bids a New Suit:

"With 13-16 points (minimum hand): (That's ~12-14 HCP + distribution -foo)

*Raise GOP's Major to the cheapest available level with 4 card support (we also teach to raise w/ 3 card support when Responder's bid promises 5 -foo).

*Bid a 2nd suit of four cards or longer if it can be bid at the one level. A lower ranking suit than the original one can be bid at the two level.

*Bid NT at the cheapest level.

*Rebid the original suit at the cheapest level."

 

Edwin Kantar's _Bridge for Dummy's_:

p193

Rebidding 2N after a 2/1 response shows a minimum, and Reverses require 15+ HCP

 

From Bill Root's _Commonsense Bidding_:

p51

After A 2/1 Response:

Says the same as the 2 above.

Significantly, this book, which is older than the other two, makes explicit mention of the possibility of a nonforcing rebid of 2N or a 2 level rebid of their original suit or a simple raise of responder's suit. He then goes on to say "The modern trend is to play any rebid by opener below game as forcing, and this is the way a vast majority of experts play; this method is described in this book."

 

TBF, what to do with any specific hand in any specific auction is of course not covered in detail in novice books. The principles, guidelines, rules, etc are laid out. How to best and most intelligently apply them in any given situation is the province of the instructor.

 

Dynamic evaluation and re-evaluation of hands of less than traditionally opening or GF strength is usually only introduced in the most introductory novice books. Later books in the C series, other more advanced novice books, and decent instructors cover the topic in increasing levels of detail as students progress.

[foo]

If it goes 1S-1N with a 11 HCP (12)55, or 1(345) hand, and Opener passes with a minimum in terms of both shape and values, the odds of you missing a good game are minimal.

 

Given that opener will have to pass balanced 14/15 counts, I disagree.

1= In basic SA, here Opener is unlikely to have a balanced medium hand because that is usually opened 1N. Yes, that usually includes 5M332 15-17 HCP hands without a M suit good enough to be rebid.

 

2= p90-93 of _The C Series_, Responder bids 1N:

Audrey actually calls Responder's 1N bid "invitational" as in "you are invited but not forced to bid again" rather than "Invitational to Game".

The text and examples makes it clear that the only hands passing after 1M-1N are

12-13 HCP 5M332's and 45?? hands not strong enough to Reverse.

Every other hand bids, including the potentially problematic 14 HCP 5M332 or 45?? hand (which rebids 2H systemically).

The theory evidently is that since Responder has 6-10 or a bad 11, you will land on your feet the majority of the time.

 

I'm not saying SA is perfect. Far from it. But it is nowhere near as flawed as many seem to believe.

[Stephen Tu]

Hmm, I'm going to have to hunt down a copy of the club series, first store I went to didn't have it in stock.

 

From the Audrey Grant ACBL C series:

p101

Opener's Rebid After Responder Bids a New Suit:

[rebids with minimum hand listed]

 

You made the claim that the "book rebid" with a hand such as Qxxxx Kx AKJxx x after 1s-2h was 2nt. I think you have grossly misinterpreted what she has written. Her list of minimum rebids is not intended as an ordered list; it is not a listing of priorities, just a listing of possible actions. I cannot believe that it is her intention to suggest that one should rebid 2nt with a small stiff in an unbid suit as a default catchall action, in order to avoid rebidding a weak 5 cd major. Does she give any hand examples to support your contention?

 

Also, do you have the page # where she mentions the split range treatment for the 2nt rebid, that you also claim exists?

 

Edwin Kantar's _Bridge for Dummies_:

p193

Rebidding 2N after a 2/1 response shows a minimum, and Reverses require 15+ HCP

And he also gives example where opener is supposed to rebid a 5 card suit, not NT on a singleton. Kantar unfortunately doesn't show any examples with a weak 5 cd suit.

 

From Bill Root's _Commonsense Bidding_:

And he very specifically gives example where opener is forced to rebid a weak 5 card suit, not 2nt, not the 2nd suit at the 3 level. He mentions that although one doesn't like having to rebid a weak 5 bagger, sometimes it is necessary. He also mentions in the 2nt rebid section avoiding bidding it on 12/bad 13 since responder is forced to bid again.

 

Neither Kantar nor Root mention the possibility of playing 2nt as split range 12-14/18-19, with 18-19 the rebid is 3nt according to them.

 

1= In basic SA, here Opener is unlikely to have a balanced medium hand because that is usually opened 1N. Yes, that usually includes 5M332 15-17 HCP hands without a M suit good enough to be rebid.

 

That's entirely a stylistic choice. Not all people play mandatory 1nt openers on 5M332 hands. And certainly 14 vs. 11 would be opened 1M, and I want to be in game on most of these, especially at IMPs.

 

2= p90-93 of _The C Series_, Responder bids 1N:

Audrey actually calls Responder's 1N bid "invitational" as in "you are invited but not forced to bid again" rather than "Invitational to Game".

Right, 1nt is not invitational to game, in fact it is supposed to deny an game invitational hand opposite a minimum range opener in SA. But 11hcp, even with misfit for partner's suit, in my book is invitational to game opposite the min range, and shouldn't bid 1nt only. I think you are being too conservative otherwise. You talk about shape being important. I agree, but this is already being taken into account here! With a fit, you can 2/1 on less than 11hcp, Root in Commonsense bidding talks about 2/1 requiring 11 "total points", which includes distribution bonuses. Here your shortness in partner's suit is not an asset, but you still have 11 hcp, and the 5th card in your suit(s) may be assets if partner has some sort of fit for one.

 

The text and examples makes it clear that the only hands passing after 1M-1N are

12-13 HCP 5M332's and 45?? hands not strong enough to Reverse.

Every other hand bids, including the potentially problematic 14 HCP 5M332 or 45?? hand (which rebids 2H systemically).

Page #s?

 

In any case, I've never been a fan of Audrey Grant's based on my brief browsing of some of her material; I think Bill Root's books are much better & of course his credentials as a player are light years ahead.

[foo]

You made the claim that the "book rebid" with a hand such as Qxxxx Kx AKJxx x after 1s-2h was 2N.  I think you have grossly misinterpreted what she has written.  Her list of minimum rebids is not intended as an ordered list; it is not a listing of priorities, just a listing of possible actions.  I cannot believe that it is her intention to suggest that one should rebid 2N with a small stiff in an unbid suit as a default catchall action, in order to avoid rebidding a weak 5 cd major.  Does she give any hand examples to support your contention?

Let's really get into the details.

 

Qxxxx.Kx.AKJxx.x

1S-2H;-??

 

Here are the systemic SA choices:

a= rebid 3D GF.

If you believe the above hand is worth 15+ playing points in this auction, then the systemic bid is 3D. =I'd= probably bid 3D with this hand ATT, but my card play is supposed to be better than most novices and intermediates... ;)

I'd also know I'm taking a small gamble treating my hand in this auction as worth 15+, and if it worked out badly I pre-accept the blame in the postmortem.

 

b= rebid 2S

Qxxxx is not much of a suit, but at least I'm emphasizing a desire to play in a suit rather than NT; which addresses your issues about the C singleton.

 

c= rebid 2N.

You do have D's stopped, you definitely want any S or H lead to come up to you rather than through you, and if pard has a GF hand they are very likely to have C values. OTOH, there is the stiff C.

 

 

Qxxxx.x.AKJxx.Kx

IS-2H-??

Same choices as before.

The Good: Now we "know" that Responder has our singleton suit stopped.

The Bad: x in H's is a much poorer holding than Kx in H's for this auction.

I feel much less comfortable rebidding a GF 3D now.

2S or 2N? Which do you and your partner consider the least evil?

In actual play ATT I'd probably rebid 2N under this circumstance nearly 100% of the time.

 

AKJxx.x.Qxxxx.Kx

Same auction. Same choices.

I'm still not rebidding 3D. OTOH, a 2S rebid is very easy to justify.

I'm happy to play 4S in a 52 "fit" with Hhhxx as a trump suit

("H" is A, K, or Q; "h" is A, K, Q, J, or T).

 

AJxxx.x.KQxxx.Kx

Same auction. Same choices.

Which do you prefer, 2S or 2N? Which helps GOP the most?

IMHO 2N does.

 

 

In sum, playing SA, unlike in 2/1 GF, is there is no "default catchall rebid" for Opener after a 2/1.

If I gave such an impression, I apologize. That certainly was not my intent.

In SA, You have both a rebid of your suit and 2N available as non GF rebids to describe your hand to GOP in 2/1 auctions.

Why not choose between them whichever best describes your hand to GOP?

[Stephen Tu]

I think it's pretty sick to bid NT with a small stiff or doubleton in an unbid suit. Even small tripleton isn't great. If partner doesn't have help there, you are hosed since frequently partner will just raise to 3nt. If he does have help there, some reasonable fraction of the time you go down because the lead goes through him rather than up to him. I don't think that either of these points can really be disputed.

 

On the other hand, what great benefit do you gain from 2M guaranteeing a good suit, if 2M is forcing? Can you give hand examples, where the ambiguity of the 2M bid makes it impossible to unwind to a good spot later? In my view, guaranteeing a good suit for 2M only helps if you are playing a light 2/1 style (old fashioned Acol like perhaps), and 2M is *non-forcing*, then you can make better decisions between the 2M & 2nt partials. But when partner is promising a rebid and using stronger 2/1s, I think it is extremely difficult to construct hands where you can't probe & get to a reasonable spot later despite the ambiguous length/strength of the 2M suit.

 

Generally, when you have to have an ambiguous bid because you have too many hand types to describe, it's best to keep the bidding as low as possible to give you a better chance to unwind the hand types later. 2M is lower than 2nt and thus is better suited to this task. Gives room for responder to bid 2nt & opener to complete a description. Every step you chew up reduces the number of hand types you can show.

 

I've been rebidding horrible 5cM after 2/1s for many years. It works perfectly fine. I still manage to find my fits, bid NT when it is right, find 6-2, 5-2, 6-1 major fits when it is right, at least the vast majority of the time. All it requires is a partner who hasn't been incorrectly taught that rebidding 2M after a 2/1 guarantees a 6 cd suit, or a good suit, which unfortunately I have overheard some instructors teach their novices. They haven't thought through all the ramifications of this. The only time I see people getting in big trouble directly related to rebidding weak 5cM is when their partner leaps to 4 on a small doubleton, because "you promised 6 pd".

[foo]

Stephen, I never meant to say nor advocate that Opener's rebid of their suit promises 6+ cards or a good suit in SA.

 

What I've been trying to say is that in SA you should use the more descriptive of the sequences 1foo-2bar;2foo vs 1foo-2bar;2N when those are your legitimate choices.

 

I've also said that there is no default catchall 2/1 sequence for Opener playing SA.

1foo-2bar;2foo is a standard catchall sequence playing some styles of 2/1 GF, not SA.

 

I think I know where the communication disconnect may have started.

 

My original statement in this thread was

"The difference being the length and quality of the S suit:

1S-2H;2S implies 6+S or a hand where a significant number of my tricks are in S's (Hhhxx for instance)"

 

I later used the extreme example of "not being able to tell whether Opener has xxxxx or AKQJxx if a minimum Opener always rebids their suit."

 

The first statement could have been written more clearly on my part. Bad Ron, no biscuit. The extremity of the examples I used to keep my point clear probably strengthened the misimpression.

 

Let me be explicit here:

There is no catchall 2/1 sequence in SA.

In SA all rebids below Game by Opener are 100% forcing.

In SA Opener's "high reverse" or bidding past 2N requires 15+ and creates a GF.

In SA 1foo-2bar;2foo does not promise a good or long suit.

In SA 2/1 auctions, minimum Openers have the choice of 1foo-2bar;2foo and 1foo-2bar;2N.

In SA, minimum Openers should use whichever of those 2 sequences is more descriptive of their hand

(Actually we really want to rebid whichever maximizes the play odds on the hand; but this requires a level of Declarer play and visualization that most novices and intermediates do not usually have. So at first we tell them to make the most descriptive bid, and then as they develop we get into Asymmetric Guards and putting the stronger defender on opening lead and ... etc)

 

It would be nice if all 2suit rebids showed nice or long suits. It would be nice if all 2N rebids showed flat hands w/ all the unbid suits stopped. ITRW, things are frequently not that simple. It is common to have to use judgement as to which SA sequence is more descriptive, or the least lie, of your hand.

[MickyB]

All very interesting. For the most part, I agree with Adam and Stephen, apart from...

 

It just doesn't work to play 1NT shows 6-11 hcp with virtually any distribution, non-forcing.

 

I agree that you need some way to cope with invitational single-suiters (either invitational jump-shifts or 1M:2m, blah:3m invitational) but otherwise I don't see the problem with a NF 1NT response. Over 1♠, it is only being passed by 5332 minima, where do you think you are heading? I don't even see the problem with including 3 card limit raises, at IMPs at least. A 1♥ opening is a bit more complicated - now I certainly don't want to include 3 card limit raises for fear that partner passes with a well-fitting 45(31), and 4522 15 counts are painful, but it still seems like a reasonable method - certainly better than forcing partner to find a call on a 4522 12 count. Of course, Kaplan Inversion deals with this problem.

 

Is it clear that 1M:2m, 2M:3M should be NF? I think there is a lot to be said for just bidding marginal games based on the fit, and it makes slam-tries much easier (particularly if the sequence sets the major suit as trumps).

 

I've been thinking about what should be forcing when playing strong NT, 4 card majors. Unless you use some complex methods, all 12-14 hands with 4333/4432 shape have to rebid 2NT, which should clearly be forcing (I suggest GF unless responder rebids his suit). This is fine until you come to deal with 3 card limit raises of opener's major - they often don't want to go past 2M opposite a balanced minimum. The options seem to be to start off with a 1NT bid (fine opposite a 1♠ opening but not opposite a 1♥ opening IMO for the reasons given above - Kaplan Inversion isn't an option when playing 4cM) or give 1M:2M a very high top end, possibly putting the weaker raises into a 1NT response.

[jdonn]

I have no personal opinion on standard american or sayc, but out of curiosity I checked my copy of The Club Series last night. Grant specifically says in at least two places that on the auction 1♠ p 2♥ p 2NT, the 2NT bid shows a balanced hand (though she doesn't state outright whether she consider's it forcing or not.)

[david_c]

I don't think anyone has mentioned my preferred method, which is for opener to rebid:

 

2M = any minimum (but could still be GF if the hand is fairly balanced)

2NT = 6+ major, forcing to game

 

This is very non-standard, but I would try to agree it with a new partner playing SAYC-style 2/1s. It's very easy to play (continuations after 2NT can be completely natural), and it solves a difficult hand type. And it saves all this discussion about whether opener's 2NT is forcing or not.

[Stephen Tu]

Looks like I've got foo on the retreat :).

 

In SA 1foo-2bar;2foo does not promise a good or long suit.

In SA 2/1 auctions, minimum Openers have the choice of 1foo-2bar;2foo and 1foo-2bar;2N.

(when not having 2 of lower ranking suit available to bid)

 

In SA, minimum Openers should use whichever of those 2 sequences is more descriptive of their hand

(Actually we really want to rebid whichever maximizes the play odds on the hand;

My assertion is that in order to maximize your scores, 2M is going to more often work out well when you have a rebid problem; 2nt should be bid only with outside stops & 14+. (I notice you also haven't been able to give attribution for your split range assertion yet.) Otherwise you reach too many 3nt contracts while understrength, or suit unstopped, or suit stopped but wrongsided.

 

Given that you will be rebidding 2M with a wide variety of hands, with varying suit length & quality, ranging from hands with good 6+ cd suits, to 5-5 hands with a bad opening suit, & very min balanced hands, the 2M bid is not all that descriptive, and thus meets the definition of a catchall.

 

One might dispute my preference of rebidding 2M on very min bal hands, but since you concede that 2M can't guarantee a good suit, I will assert that this gives you a chance to stay in 2nt when both hands are minimum, without great loss. If responder has a GF, opener can always bid 3nt later when appropriate.

[foo]

"Retreat" is not a correct interpetation of either my mood, actions, or intent.

 

"Clarify" or "try to make sure I'm speaking and being heard accurately" is correct.

 

You started railing about 1foo;2bar;2foo promising a good suit as a bad way to bid.

You then accused me of being a proponent of that position.

It is not a position I ever stated.

Please stop putting words in my mouth or twisting my statements.

(or gloating that I was not explicit enough for you.)

 

I in fact happen to agree with you that SA has serious problems if a 1foo-2bar;2foo must promise a good suit. (Perversely there is less problem using this agreement playing 2/1 GF than there is playing SA, but that is a different discussion)

 

However, I strongly disagree with your notion that there is a "default" or "catchall" auction of 1foo;2bar;2foo playing SA.

 

There is no "catchall" 2/1 sequence in SA.

That is an agreement usually found in some variations of 2/1 GF, not SA.

 

In SA, you should always make the best bid you can from the legitimate choices available to you.

 

In SA, after 1S-2C;??

I am not rebidding 2N with JTxxx.AKx.xxx.KQ. I am rebidding 2S.

I am not rebidding 2S with xxxxx.AKx.JTx.KQ. I am rebidding 2N.

Am I "happy" about either choice? No of course not. Is my choice the best I can do in describing my hand to partner? Yes.

 

Partnerships can of course make whatever special agreements they wish, but w/o discussion and explicit agreement to the contrary, a SA pair should always be striving to describe their hands as best as they can with the bids available to them.

 

YMMV.

[Stephen Tu]

I am not putting words into your mouth.

 

Your very first post in this thread, you said:

"Also, I have found it useful to use both 1S-2H;2S and 1S-2H;2N as catchalls.

 

The difference being the length and quality of the S suit:

1S-2H;2S implies 6+S or a hand where a significant number of my tricks are in S's (Hhhxx for instance)

 

1S-2H;2N is the catchall for everything else that can't find or afford a more descriptive bid"

 

So here you called both 2S & 2nt "catchalls". Now you are saying there are no catchalls. First you said that 2M implied a good suit. Now you disavow that statement. If this not a retreat, what is?

 

Anyway, since rebid 2M doesn't guarantee anything specific, just "least of evils", denying ability to make a more descriptive call, and covers a wide variety of hands, that is a catchall by most people's definition of the term.

 

There is no rational reason to say that there can be catchalls in 2/1GF but not in SA. It is a stylistic choice which bid to use & exactly which hand types to throw in it. You are using a catchall even if you now refuse to call it a catchall even though you did so earlier.

 

Of course you should always try to find the most descriptive, highest scoring bid, best choice given the circumstances. But a lot of time that is going to be 2M, and that just denies a bunch of other specific stuff, so it doesn't describe much.

 

I guess I am done here.

[foo]

I am not putting words into your mouth.

 

Your very first post in this thread, you said:

"Also, I have found it useful to use both 1S-2H;2S and 1S-2H;2N as catchalls.

 

The difference being the length and quality of the S suit:

1S-2H;2S implies 6+S or a hand where a significant number of my tricks are in S's (Hhhxx for instance)

 

1S-2H;2N is the catchall for everything else that can't find or afford a more descriptive bid"

 

So here you called both 2S & 2nt "catchalls".  Now you are saying there are no catchalls.  First you said that 2M implied a good suit.  Now you disavow that statement.  If this not a retreat, what is?

 

Anyway, since rebid 2M doesn't guarantee anything specific, just "least of evils", denying ability to make a more descriptive call, and covers a wide variety of hands, that is a catchall by most people's definition of the term.

 

There is no rational reason to say that there can be catchalls in 2/1GF but not in SA.  It is a stylistic choice which bid to use & exactly which hand types to throw in it.  You are using a catchall even if you now refuse to call it a catchall even though you did so earlier.

 

Of course you should always try to find the most descriptive, highest scoring bid, best choice given the circumstances.  But a lot of time that is going to be 2M, and that just denies a bunch of other specific stuff, so it doesn't describe much.

 

I guess I am done here.

I have already said that my original posts were not as clear as they should have been and apologized for it as well as hopefully clarified my original statement.

 

That is not retreating from my position. That is apologizing for presenting my position in a muddled way. If you actually need or want some sort of a "retreat", or some sort of groveling, in order to make yourself feel better in some way; I am afraid you are going to have to look elsewhere for such ego gratification.

 

It is, of course, impossible for two bids to both be "catchalls": either all things that do not have an assigned place go into one bucket or there are still multiple buckets to choose from. 2 bids, two buckets. 1 bid for everything left over, a catchall.

The intent was to point out that in SA there are many hands that must choose between these two buckets that are not even close to perfect for either one.

The use of the word "catchall" when talking about two different bids was not precise enough on my part, and for that imprecision in use of language I also apologize.

 

As for you "being done here": Not unless you want to be.

 

I fully intend to answer your questions / address your issues with regards to 1foo-2bar;2N being able to show either a minimum or a maximum hand; the "split range" as commonly called.

And any other SA 2/1 issues you care to raise.

However, there is no point in taking any chances of muddying the discussion by pursuing multiple discussion topics in parallel when dealing with someone who is evidently looking for an excuse to be hostile. Therefore I am not doing so with you.

 

Once you and I are done with this specific point on SA, then if you wish I will handle the next one on your list and I will continue to deal with them in order one at a time until you are satisfied that I have addressed all of your concerns in these matters.

 

I want you to be very sure that I have not and will not in any way "retreat" from you or your posts.